Man atrodo, kad jūs truputėlį nukrypote į filmų kaipo tokių, o ne žmonių reakcijų į juos aptarimą. Tarkim, filmas gali būti sukurtas su vienokiu tikslu, kritikų priskiriamas prie pasiekusių kitokius tikslus, o realybėje veikti dar kitaip.
Palyginkime su farmacija: teoretikai gali kiek nori aiškinti, kad tam tikra veiklioji medžiaga mažina kraujospūdį, nes jos formulė tokia ir tokia, bet jei empiriškai nustatysime, kad ji vietoje kraujospūdžio mažinimo sukelia vėžį - ji keliaus į šiukšliadėžę.
Po tokio solidaus žodžių srauto paklausiu: ar kiekvienas konkretus filmas veikia žmones tik taip ir ne kitaip, nepriklausomai nuo jų pačių savybių? Ar gali būti, kad, tarkime, japonams patriotinius jausmus žadinantis filmas Antarktidoje bus laikomas pornografiniu ar smurtiniu?
Filmų pramonė yra blogis?
Nepaisant to, absoliučiai jokių argumentų, rodančių smurtinių filmų įtaką nusikalstamumui jūs nepateikėte. Taigi?mergina_22 wrote:2. Su Shaolin Mantis disputas vyko del smurtiniu filmu apskritai, o ne del mazo nusikalstamumo lygio Japonijoje. Reiketu nepainioti nesusijusiu temu ir nieko bendro neturinciu forumo dalyviu minciu.
Ir kas? Filmų reitingavimo taisyklės nuo to laiko mažai pasikeitė.mergina_22 wrote:3. RB pateikta statistika yra mazdaug 1999-2001 metu, t.y. gana sena.
Be to, ar manote, kad dabar situacija pasikeitė ir nusikalstamumas Japonijoje pralenkė JAV?
Su tuo visiškai sutinku. Tačiau jei jau neturime statistikos, rodančios faktorių įtaką, kaip jūs galite teigti, kad smurtiniai filmai skatina smurtą? Įrodinėjimo našta gula ant jūsų pečių, ne ant mano, nepamirškite to. Nes dabar jūs panaši į kai kuriuos veikėjus, rėkiančius „įrodyk, kad dievo nėra“...mergina_22 wrote:Be to, RB apsimete, kad nepamate, kai as paminejau, jog smurto priezastys yra kompleksines, todel faktinis nusikalstamumo lygis salyje nerodo atskiru faktoriu itakos.
Taigi, argumentuoju:mergina_22 wrote:Bet mano samprotavimai tiek pat subjektyvus, kiek ir asmenu, kurie teigia, jog tokios itakos nera. Jeigu jau mes kalbame apie tai, kad bet kuria nuomone butina paremti faktais, tai Shaolin Mantis, RB ar bet kas kitas turetu graziai pasakyti: "smurtinai filmai neturi itakos nusikalstamumui, as remiuosi stai siais objektyviais faktais (toliau seka patikima nauja statistika, tyrimu duomenys ir t.t.)". Argumentuoti privalau ne tik as.
Smurtiniai filmai neturi įtakos nusikalstamumui, nes nėra jokių objektyvių duomenų, rodančių, kad smurtiniai filmai tokios įtakos turi.
Okamo skustuvas
Renkamės minimalų modelį.
Kadangi čia ne telepatų tūsas, tokių nesusipratimų galima išvengti parašius, į ką kreipiatės1. Visu pirma as atsakinejau ne i RB post'a. Primenu, kad RB post'as buvo atspausdintas veliau negu Shaolin Mantis post'as, i kuri atsakinejau. Dar galiu pridurti, kad rasydama forumo dalyviui atsakyma, as koncentruojuosi i jo mintis. Nesuprantu, kodel RB pateikti argumentai turetu tarnauti uz Shaolin Mantis argumentus, kuriu jis nepateike jokiu. Cia, Nomad, yra ne komandinis zaidimas. Kiekvienas atsako uz savo zodzius.
Prie žinučių po citatomis juk nesikabinėjau O jei citatos nėra, įprasta manyti, kad ta žinutė skirta paskutinio posto autoriui.
O jei citatos nėra, įprasta manyti, kad ta žinutė skirta paskutinio posto autoriui.Kadangi buvo prasoma pateikti realiu tyrimu duomenis, visiems, kurie vis dar tvirtai isitikine, kad smurtiniai filmai neturi itakos agresijos skatinimui ir nusikalstamumo didejimui, siulau paskaityti, kas buvo atlikti sioje srityje:
Research strand: Children who consume high levels of media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world
In 1956, researchers took to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the non-violent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys.
Six years later, in 1963, professors A. Badura, D. Ross and S.A. Ross studied the effect of exposure to real-world violence, television violence, and cartoon violence. They divided 100 preschool children into four groups. The first group watched a real person shout insults at an inflatable doll while hitting it with a mallet. The second group watched the incident on television. The third watched a cartoon version of the same scene, and the fourth watched nothing.
When all the children were later exposed to a frustrating situation, the first three groups responded with more aggression than the control group. The children who watched the incident on television were just as aggressive as those who had watched the real person use the mallet; and both were more aggressive than those who had only watched the cartoon.
Over the years, laboratory experiments such as these have consistently shown that exposure to violence is associated with increased heartbeat, blood pressure and respiration rate, and a greater willingness to administer electric shocks to inflict pain or punishment on others. However, this line of enquiry has been criticized because of its focus on short term results and the artificial nature of the viewing environment.
Other scientists have sought to establish a connection between media violence and aggression outside the laboratory. For example, a number of surveys indicate that children and young people who report a preference for violent entertainment also score higher on aggression indexes than those who watch less violent shows. L. Rowell Huesmann reviewed studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States. He reports, "the child most likely to be aggressive would be the one who (a) watches violent television programs most of the time, (b) believes that these shows portray life just as it is, [and] (c) identifies strongly with the aggressive characters in the shows."
A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV. However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours — 87 per cent of kids do so.
Recent research is exploring the effect of new media on children’s behaviour. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University reviewed dozens of studies of video gamers. In 2001, they reported that children and young people who play violent video games, even for short periods, are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world; and that both aggressive and non-aggressive children are negatively affected by playing.
In 2003, Craig Anderson and Iowa State University colleague Nicholas Carnagey and Janie Eubanks of the Texas Department of Human Services reported that violent music lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings among 500 college students. They concluded, "There are now good theoretical and empirical reasons to expect effects of music lyrics on aggressive behavior to be similar to the well-studied effects of exposure to TV and movie violence and the more recent research efforts on violent video games."
Research Strand: Children who watch high levels of media violence are at increased risk of aggressive behaviour as adults
In 1960, University of Michigan Professor Leonard Eron studied 856 grade three students living in a semi-rural community in Columbia County, New York, and found that the children who watched violent television at home behaved more aggressively in school. Eron wanted to track the effect of this exposure over the years, so he revisited Columbia County in 1971, when the children who participated in the 1960 study were 19 years of age. He found that boys who watched violent TV when they were eight were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers.
When Eron and Huesmann returned to Columbia County in 1982, the subjects were 30 years old. They reported that those participants who had watched more violent TV as eight-year-olds were more likely, as adults, to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively.
Professor Monroe Lefkowitz published similar findings in 1971. Lefkowitz interviewed a group of eight-year-olds and found that the boys who watched more violent TV were more likely to act aggressively in the real world. When he interviewed the same boys ten years later, he found that the more violence a boy watched at eight, the more aggressively he would act at age eighteen.
Columbia University professor Jeffrey Johnson has found that the effect is not limited to violent shows. Johnson tracked 707 families in upstate New York for 17 years, starting in 1975. In 2002, Johnson reported that children who watched one to three hours of television each day when they were 14 to 16 years old were 60 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults and fights as adults than those who watched less TV.
Kansas State University professor John Murray concludes, "The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behavior when the young boy becomes a young man."
Research Strand: The introduction of television into a community leads to an increase in violent behaviour
Researchers have also pursued the link between media violence and real life aggression by examining communities before and after the introduction of television. In the mid 1970s, University of British Columbia professor Tannis McBeth Williams studied a remote village in British Columbia both before and after television was introduced. She found that two years after TV arrived, violent incidents had increased by 160 per cent.
Researchers Gary Granzberg and Jack Steinbring studied three Cree communities in northern Manitoba during the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that four years after television was introduced into one of the communities, the incidence of fist fights and black eyes among the children had increased significantly. Interestingly, several days after an episode of Happy Days aired, in which one character joined a gang called the Red Demons, children in the community created rival gangs, called the Red Demons and the Green Demons, and the conflict between the two seriously disrupted the local school.
University of Washington Professor Brandon Centerwall noted that the sharp increase in the murder rate in North America in 1955 occurred eight years after television sets began to enter North American homes. To test his hypothesis that the two were related, he examined the murder rate in South Africa where, prior to 1975, television was banned by the government. He found that twelve years after the ban was lifted, murder rates skyrocketed.
Research Strand: Media violence desensitizes people to real violence
A number of studies in the 1970’s showed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. For example, Professors V.B. Cline, R.G. Croft, and S. Courrier studied young boys over a two-year period. In 1973, they reported that boys who watch more than 25 hours of television per week are significantly less likely to be aroused by real world violence than those boys who watch 4 hours or less per week.
When researchers Fred Molitor and Ken Hirsch revisited this line of investigation in 1994, their work confirmed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behaviour in the real world if they first watch TV shows or films that contain violent content.
Taip pat siulau paskaityti issamia studija apie TV rodomo smurto efektus cia: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... olence.cfm
Research strand: Children who consume high levels of media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world
In 1956, researchers took to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the non-violent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys.
Six years later, in 1963, professors A. Badura, D. Ross and S.A. Ross studied the effect of exposure to real-world violence, television violence, and cartoon violence. They divided 100 preschool children into four groups. The first group watched a real person shout insults at an inflatable doll while hitting it with a mallet. The second group watched the incident on television. The third watched a cartoon version of the same scene, and the fourth watched nothing.
When all the children were later exposed to a frustrating situation, the first three groups responded with more aggression than the control group. The children who watched the incident on television were just as aggressive as those who had watched the real person use the mallet; and both were more aggressive than those who had only watched the cartoon.
Over the years, laboratory experiments such as these have consistently shown that exposure to violence is associated with increased heartbeat, blood pressure and respiration rate, and a greater willingness to administer electric shocks to inflict pain or punishment on others. However, this line of enquiry has been criticized because of its focus on short term results and the artificial nature of the viewing environment.
Other scientists have sought to establish a connection between media violence and aggression outside the laboratory. For example, a number of surveys indicate that children and young people who report a preference for violent entertainment also score higher on aggression indexes than those who watch less violent shows. L. Rowell Huesmann reviewed studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States. He reports, "the child most likely to be aggressive would be the one who (a) watches violent television programs most of the time, (b) believes that these shows portray life just as it is, [and] (c) identifies strongly with the aggressive characters in the shows."
A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV. However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours — 87 per cent of kids do so.
Recent research is exploring the effect of new media on children’s behaviour. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University reviewed dozens of studies of video gamers. In 2001, they reported that children and young people who play violent video games, even for short periods, are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world; and that both aggressive and non-aggressive children are negatively affected by playing.
In 2003, Craig Anderson and Iowa State University colleague Nicholas Carnagey and Janie Eubanks of the Texas Department of Human Services reported that violent music lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings among 500 college students. They concluded, "There are now good theoretical and empirical reasons to expect effects of music lyrics on aggressive behavior to be similar to the well-studied effects of exposure to TV and movie violence and the more recent research efforts on violent video games."
Research Strand: Children who watch high levels of media violence are at increased risk of aggressive behaviour as adults
In 1960, University of Michigan Professor Leonard Eron studied 856 grade three students living in a semi-rural community in Columbia County, New York, and found that the children who watched violent television at home behaved more aggressively in school. Eron wanted to track the effect of this exposure over the years, so he revisited Columbia County in 1971, when the children who participated in the 1960 study were 19 years of age. He found that boys who watched violent TV when they were eight were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers.
When Eron and Huesmann returned to Columbia County in 1982, the subjects were 30 years old. They reported that those participants who had watched more violent TV as eight-year-olds were more likely, as adults, to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively.
Professor Monroe Lefkowitz published similar findings in 1971. Lefkowitz interviewed a group of eight-year-olds and found that the boys who watched more violent TV were more likely to act aggressively in the real world. When he interviewed the same boys ten years later, he found that the more violence a boy watched at eight, the more aggressively he would act at age eighteen.
Columbia University professor Jeffrey Johnson has found that the effect is not limited to violent shows. Johnson tracked 707 families in upstate New York for 17 years, starting in 1975. In 2002, Johnson reported that children who watched one to three hours of television each day when they were 14 to 16 years old were 60 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults and fights as adults than those who watched less TV.
Kansas State University professor John Murray concludes, "The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behavior when the young boy becomes a young man."
Research Strand: The introduction of television into a community leads to an increase in violent behaviour
Researchers have also pursued the link between media violence and real life aggression by examining communities before and after the introduction of television. In the mid 1970s, University of British Columbia professor Tannis McBeth Williams studied a remote village in British Columbia both before and after television was introduced. She found that two years after TV arrived, violent incidents had increased by 160 per cent.
Researchers Gary Granzberg and Jack Steinbring studied three Cree communities in northern Manitoba during the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that four years after television was introduced into one of the communities, the incidence of fist fights and black eyes among the children had increased significantly. Interestingly, several days after an episode of Happy Days aired, in which one character joined a gang called the Red Demons, children in the community created rival gangs, called the Red Demons and the Green Demons, and the conflict between the two seriously disrupted the local school.
University of Washington Professor Brandon Centerwall noted that the sharp increase in the murder rate in North America in 1955 occurred eight years after television sets began to enter North American homes. To test his hypothesis that the two were related, he examined the murder rate in South Africa where, prior to 1975, television was banned by the government. He found that twelve years after the ban was lifted, murder rates skyrocketed.
Research Strand: Media violence desensitizes people to real violence
A number of studies in the 1970’s showed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. For example, Professors V.B. Cline, R.G. Croft, and S. Courrier studied young boys over a two-year period. In 1973, they reported that boys who watch more than 25 hours of television per week are significantly less likely to be aroused by real world violence than those boys who watch 4 hours or less per week.
When researchers Fred Molitor and Ken Hirsch revisited this line of investigation in 1994, their work confirmed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behaviour in the real world if they first watch TV shows or films that contain violent content.
Taip pat siulau paskaityti issamia studija apie TV rodomo smurto efektus cia: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... olence.cfm
Gal jums diskusijos del dievo egzistencijos = diskusijoms del smurtiniu filmu itakos agresijai, bet man tai visiskai nelygiaverciai dalykai.RB wrote: Įrodinėjimo našta gula ant jūsų pečių, ne ant mano, nepamirškite to. Nes dabar jūs panaši į kai kuriuos veikėjus, rėkiančius „įrodyk, kad dievo nėra“...
Be to, kas sake, kad irodinejimo nasta gula ant mano peciu. Taip, pamenu straipsneli tam paciam skeptikas.org apie diskutavimo ir argumentavimo mena, taciau man tai nera joks etalonas, i kuri reiketu orientuotis. Is jusu irgi noreciau daugiau originalumo, pvz., ne eiti lengvu keliu perkeliant argumentavimo nasta kitam, o ivairoves delei objektyviai paargumentuoti paciam. Aciu.
Mergina_22, (žinau, kad tau nepatinka kai į tave taip kreipiasi, todėl jei pasakytum vardą - kreipčiausi vardu)
Jeigu tu bandai užvesti aršią (gerąja prasme) diskusiją šiuo klausimu, tai pirmoji turėtum aiškiai suformuluoti ką nori įrodyti, ir pateikti bent šiokius tokius tavo poziciją pagrindžiančius faktus. Reikalauti, kad kiti pultų kažką įrodinėti prieš tau juos pateikiant - prastas stilius.
Bet kadangi faktus jau pažėriai ant stalo, aš mielai prisėsiu ir su kavos puodeliu palauksiu, ką į juos atsakys draugai skeptikai
Ir visų paprašysiu baigti žarstytis kaltinimais "kas pirmas turi pradėti". Tik taip iš to padarysime įdomią diskusiją.
Jeigu tu bandai užvesti aršią (gerąja prasme) diskusiją šiuo klausimu, tai pirmoji turėtum aiškiai suformuluoti ką nori įrodyti, ir pateikti bent šiokius tokius tavo poziciją pagrindžiančius faktus. Reikalauti, kad kiti pultų kažką įrodinėti prieš tau juos pateikiant - prastas stilius.
Bet kadangi faktus jau pažėriai ant stalo, aš mielai prisėsiu ir su kavos puodeliu palauksiu, ką į juos atsakys draugai skeptikai
Ir visų paprašysiu baigti žarstytis kaltinimais "kas pirmas turi pradėti". Tik taip iš to padarysime įdomią diskusiją.
Na as kalbejau apie meninius filmus. Daug visko pasakyta, pridesiu tik tiek, kad tie teigiamai herojai daznai naudoja tas pacias smurtines priemones pries "blogiecius" aka issaudo visus, paskui atsiseda i "smarku" automoboli alia "corvete" ir pabuciave dailia blondine nuruksta laukais. Kuo tai ne kazkokio gyvenimo budo reklama?Nomad wrote:Taip išeina, kad bukletai prieš narkotikus skatina narkomaniją?
Gal kokiu irodymu?Shaolin Mantis wrote: Yra filmų, kur prievarta skatinama (pvz., tokiu galima būtų pavadinti serialą "Sopranai"), tačiau jų - mažuma.
Visa beda, kad smurtauja ir gerieciai, bet jiems mmm galima?Shaolin Mantis wrote: Daugelyje filmų parodoma, kad smurtaujantis personažas sulaukia liūdnos pabaigos.
Gal tai ne tiek gyvenimo būdo, kiek problemų sprendimo būdo reklama. Kai kuriuose filmuose trumpai parodomos geriečio pastangos susitarti taikiai ir geruoju, tačiau žiūrovui netrukus duodama suprasti, kad tokios pastangos iš tiesų yra visiškai bevertės. Jos neretai netgi pavaizduojamos kaip geriečio klaida. Tuomet į darbą paleidžiami kumščiai, ir problema išsisprendžia. Taigi pateikiant tokius "sektinus pavyzdžius" vaikams nesunku įkalti į galvą, kaip iš tiesų turėtų būti sprendžiamos problemos - ne taikiu keliu (juk vistiek tai beprasmiška), o kumščių pagalba (tai visuomet suveikia).Liucipher wrote:Na as kalbejau apie meninius filmus. Daug visko pasakyta, pridesiu tik tiek, kad tie teigiamai herojai daznai naudoja tas pacias smurtines priemones pries "blogiecius" aka issaudo visus, paskui atsiseda i "smarku" automoboli alia "corvete" ir pabuciave dailia blondine nuruksta laukais. Kuo tai ne kazkokio gyvenimo budo reklama?
Pavyzdys - kokie nors policiniai serialai. Vyksta tardymas. Keli nieko nesuprantantys policininkai bando pričiupti įtariamąjį, gudrumu išgauti prisipažinimą. Žinoma, jiems visiškai nesiseka, įtariamasis juokiasi žiūrėdamas jiems į akis. Visa tai stebintis gerietis nebeiškenčia, kaip beprotis įpuola į tardymo kamerą, čiumpa blogietį už kiaušų, ir šis iš karto išpažįsta visas savo nuodėmes. Problema išspręsta
-
Shaolin Mantis
- pradedantis
- Posts: 140
- Joined: 2005-06-16 11:55
Siūlau sukonkretinti kai kuriuos aptariamų dalykų punktus.
1. Ar kalbame apie veiksmo žanro kino filmus, ar apie kino filmuose rodomą bet kokią prievartą ar apskritai apie prievartos demonstravimą per TV? Nuolat operuojate terminu "smurtiniai filmai", bet iki šiol nesuprantu ką juo vadinate, jei galite - apibrėžkite.
2. Mano pozicija nuo pat pradžių yra tokia: iš principo neneigiu, kad vaikui norisi pamėgdžioti tai, ką jis mato. Taip buvo visada. Net prieš šimtus metų, žaisdami vaikai mėgdžiodavo populiarius literatūros ar mitinius personažus (muškietininkai ir gvardiečiai, plėšikai ir šerifai, indėnai ir kaubojai ir t.t.), tačiau, mano nuomone, smurtą, matomą ekrane, vaikas atkartos tada, jei šalia nebus tėvų, kurie paaiškins, kas yra gerai ar blogai, ir nurodys, ką konkrečiai reiškia vienokia ar kitokia smurto apraiška, ir paaiškins, kad prievarta iš principo nėra blogai - svarbu kada, kaip ir kodėl ją vartoji. Taip, kad tai veiktų, tėvai turi būti vaikui didelis autoritetas. Mano požiūriu, jei tėvai nėra vaikui autoritetas, tai reiškia vaikui jie skiria nepakankamai laiko, ir jei tėvai nėra vaikui autoritetas, nebesvarbu tampa ir kokius filmus vaikas žiūri.
3. Abiems pozicijoms (kad ir kokios jos būtų neapibrėžtos) iš principo yra du argumentacijos šaltiniai:
- psichologiniai vaiko ar paauglio, kuriam kažkokia forma pateikiami smurto ar prievartos pavyzdžiai (mūsų diskusijai turėtų būti aktualūs tik tyrimai su kino filmais), elgesio tyrimai;
- statistiniai duomenys apie realių smurto apraiškų vaikų ar paauglių tarpe koreliaciją su jiems prieinamais tam tikrais kino filmais skirtingose apibrėžtose teritorijose ar apibrėžtame laike.
Pirmuoju būdu lengva atskirti visus kitus faktorius ir tirti konkretų smurto rodymo ryšį su smurto darymu. Daugelis tokių tyrimų nurodo, kad ryšys yra. Tačiau reikėtų paieškoti tyrimų apie konkrečius filmus, ir, be abejo, šioje diskusijoje mums nustatyti konkrečiai apie kokius filmus kalbame.
Antruoju būdu gauti duomenys paprastai neigia ryšį tarp matomo filmuose smurto ir vykdomo smurto (kad ir nurodytas Japonijos pavyzdys - o juk japonų samurajiniai filmai, siaubo filmai, filmai apie nindzes, anime, kriminaliniai filmai - yra vieni iš kruviniausių kino istorijoje!). Tačiau šiuo atveju negalime matyti kitų faktorių įtakos. Nors vien pats faktas - kad egzistuoja kiti faktoriai ir kad būtent jie nulemia galutinius rezultatus - kalba mano pozicijos naudai.
Labai rekomenduoju pasiskaityti šį gan skeptišką ir nekvailą tekstą:
http://www.videostandards.org.uk/video_violence.htm
Nedidelę šio teksto dalį leisiu sau pacituoti:
"Some years ago, one estimate claimed that there were around 3,500 studies on media violence. The American Congress has spent many millions of dollars on the subject. It is also true that most researchers claim that most studies show a link. However, many other serious minded academics disagree. I’ve read every single study now and spent most of this year re-reading and catching up on the field. I would not call the research evidence a ‘wealth’ at all. There are very many non-significant findings. Those that are significant seem unreliable, inconsistent and often flatly contradict other studies. Collectively, it is a dreadful ragbag of evidence."
"The real puzzle is that anyone looking at the research evidence in this field could draw any conclusions about the pattern, let alone argue with such confidence and even passion that it demonstrates the harm of violence on television, in film and in video games. While tests of statistical significance are a vital tool of the social sciences, they seem to have been used more often in this field as instruments of torture on the data until it confesses something to justify a publication in a scientific journal. If one conclusion is possible, it is that the jury is not still out. It’s never been in. Media violence has been subjected to lynch mob mentality with almost any evidence used to prove guilt.
This is perhaps most clearly shown in claims that some of the most distressing crimes of late have a media link. For example, Anderson and Dill (2000) suggest that violent video games were probably a factor in the massacre at Columbine High School. Four years later, Anderson (2004) introduces his update review of the research evidence on video games by listing a dozen cases from 1997 to 2003 where violent crime has been ‘linked’ to violent video games. However, as social scientists, they should be ashamed of themselves in offering only second hand undocumented hearsay support for a link. The uncritical use of media stories speculating that there might be a link sits uneasily with the values of empirical psychology.
Of course such claims are very common, perhaps often made in good faith and sound very plausible, but they have never stood up to scrutiny. In Britain, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (1994) asked James Ferman (Director of The British Board of Film Classification) what the evidence was in this area. He had advised the committee that, for more than twenty years, whenever some claim was made that a serious crime was linked to a video or a film, he had always investigated the case. He observed:
I do not know of particular cases where somebody has imitated a video and gone out and actually committed a serious crime as a result of what they have seen. (Home Affairs Select Committee, Fourth Report, 1994, p 5)""
1. Ar kalbame apie veiksmo žanro kino filmus, ar apie kino filmuose rodomą bet kokią prievartą ar apskritai apie prievartos demonstravimą per TV? Nuolat operuojate terminu "smurtiniai filmai", bet iki šiol nesuprantu ką juo vadinate, jei galite - apibrėžkite.
2. Mano pozicija nuo pat pradžių yra tokia: iš principo neneigiu, kad vaikui norisi pamėgdžioti tai, ką jis mato. Taip buvo visada. Net prieš šimtus metų, žaisdami vaikai mėgdžiodavo populiarius literatūros ar mitinius personažus (muškietininkai ir gvardiečiai, plėšikai ir šerifai, indėnai ir kaubojai ir t.t.), tačiau, mano nuomone, smurtą, matomą ekrane, vaikas atkartos tada, jei šalia nebus tėvų, kurie paaiškins, kas yra gerai ar blogai, ir nurodys, ką konkrečiai reiškia vienokia ar kitokia smurto apraiška, ir paaiškins, kad prievarta iš principo nėra blogai - svarbu kada, kaip ir kodėl ją vartoji. Taip, kad tai veiktų, tėvai turi būti vaikui didelis autoritetas. Mano požiūriu, jei tėvai nėra vaikui autoritetas, tai reiškia vaikui jie skiria nepakankamai laiko, ir jei tėvai nėra vaikui autoritetas, nebesvarbu tampa ir kokius filmus vaikas žiūri.
3. Abiems pozicijoms (kad ir kokios jos būtų neapibrėžtos) iš principo yra du argumentacijos šaltiniai:
- psichologiniai vaiko ar paauglio, kuriam kažkokia forma pateikiami smurto ar prievartos pavyzdžiai (mūsų diskusijai turėtų būti aktualūs tik tyrimai su kino filmais), elgesio tyrimai;
- statistiniai duomenys apie realių smurto apraiškų vaikų ar paauglių tarpe koreliaciją su jiems prieinamais tam tikrais kino filmais skirtingose apibrėžtose teritorijose ar apibrėžtame laike.
Pirmuoju būdu lengva atskirti visus kitus faktorius ir tirti konkretų smurto rodymo ryšį su smurto darymu. Daugelis tokių tyrimų nurodo, kad ryšys yra. Tačiau reikėtų paieškoti tyrimų apie konkrečius filmus, ir, be abejo, šioje diskusijoje mums nustatyti konkrečiai apie kokius filmus kalbame.
Antruoju būdu gauti duomenys paprastai neigia ryšį tarp matomo filmuose smurto ir vykdomo smurto (kad ir nurodytas Japonijos pavyzdys - o juk japonų samurajiniai filmai, siaubo filmai, filmai apie nindzes, anime, kriminaliniai filmai - yra vieni iš kruviniausių kino istorijoje!). Tačiau šiuo atveju negalime matyti kitų faktorių įtakos. Nors vien pats faktas - kad egzistuoja kiti faktoriai ir kad būtent jie nulemia galutinius rezultatus - kalba mano pozicijos naudai.
Labai rekomenduoju pasiskaityti šį gan skeptišką ir nekvailą tekstą:
http://www.videostandards.org.uk/video_violence.htm
Nedidelę šio teksto dalį leisiu sau pacituoti:
"Some years ago, one estimate claimed that there were around 3,500 studies on media violence. The American Congress has spent many millions of dollars on the subject. It is also true that most researchers claim that most studies show a link. However, many other serious minded academics disagree. I’ve read every single study now and spent most of this year re-reading and catching up on the field. I would not call the research evidence a ‘wealth’ at all. There are very many non-significant findings. Those that are significant seem unreliable, inconsistent and often flatly contradict other studies. Collectively, it is a dreadful ragbag of evidence."
"The real puzzle is that anyone looking at the research evidence in this field could draw any conclusions about the pattern, let alone argue with such confidence and even passion that it demonstrates the harm of violence on television, in film and in video games. While tests of statistical significance are a vital tool of the social sciences, they seem to have been used more often in this field as instruments of torture on the data until it confesses something to justify a publication in a scientific journal. If one conclusion is possible, it is that the jury is not still out. It’s never been in. Media violence has been subjected to lynch mob mentality with almost any evidence used to prove guilt.
This is perhaps most clearly shown in claims that some of the most distressing crimes of late have a media link. For example, Anderson and Dill (2000) suggest that violent video games were probably a factor in the massacre at Columbine High School. Four years later, Anderson (2004) introduces his update review of the research evidence on video games by listing a dozen cases from 1997 to 2003 where violent crime has been ‘linked’ to violent video games. However, as social scientists, they should be ashamed of themselves in offering only second hand undocumented hearsay support for a link. The uncritical use of media stories speculating that there might be a link sits uneasily with the values of empirical psychology.
Of course such claims are very common, perhaps often made in good faith and sound very plausible, but they have never stood up to scrutiny. In Britain, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (1994) asked James Ferman (Director of The British Board of Film Classification) what the evidence was in this area. He had advised the committee that, for more than twenty years, whenever some claim was made that a serious crime was linked to a video or a film, he had always investigated the case. He observed:
I do not know of particular cases where somebody has imitated a video and gone out and actually committed a serious crime as a result of what they have seen. (Home Affairs Select Committee, Fourth Report, 1994, p 5)""
Jei trumpai – tai jbtvm, užvakar buvau parašęs nemažą komentarą, bet, berods, forumas nusmigo k chiortovoj materi kartu su paskutiniais post'ais 
Kartotis tingiu, bet jei trumpai – mergina_22, perskaityk savo pateiktas citatas ir suskaičiuok, kiek ten pateikiama konkrečių duomenų, o kiek miglotų „more likely“. Taip pat niekur nepaminėta, ar buvo laikomasi mokslinės tyrimų metodikos, ar patys stebėtojai žinojo, kuri grupė yra eksperimentinė, o kuri kontrolinė (t. y. ar jų išankstinis nusiteikimas negalėjo įtakoti rezultatų).
Kas link įrodymų naštos – deja, mokslinis metodas reikalauja, kad įrodinėtų teigiantysis. Priešingu atveju galiu pateikti šimtus absurdiškų hipotezių ir laikysiu jas teisingomis tol, kol kas nors neįrodys jų klaidingumo.
Kartotis tingiu, bet jei trumpai – mergina_22, perskaityk savo pateiktas citatas ir suskaičiuok, kiek ten pateikiama konkrečių duomenų, o kiek miglotų „more likely“. Taip pat niekur nepaminėta, ar buvo laikomasi mokslinės tyrimų metodikos, ar patys stebėtojai žinojo, kuri grupė yra eksperimentinė, o kuri kontrolinė (t. y. ar jų išankstinis nusiteikimas negalėjo įtakoti rezultatų).
Kas link įrodymų naštos – deja, mokslinis metodas reikalauja, kad įrodinėtų teigiantysis. Priešingu atveju galiu pateikti šimtus absurdiškų hipotezių ir laikysiu jas teisingomis tol, kol kas nors neįrodys jų klaidingumo.
Jusu komentaras, kuriame atskleidete retorikos gabumus, buvo parasytas pries man pateikiant faktinius duomenis, kuriu vos ne verkdamas prasete. Tikrai tenka konstatuoti, kad retorika vs. faktai tikrai liudija jusu komentaro nukeliavima "k chiortovoj materi".RB wrote: Jei trumpai – tai jbtvm, užvakar buvau parašęs nemažą komentarą, bet, berods, forumas nusmigo k chiortovoj materi kartu su paskutiniais post'ais
Paskaiciau. Visur pateikiami konkretus duomenys. Pirmiausia iskeliama hipoteze, toliau aptariami mokslininku tyrimai, kurie sita hipoteze patvirtina (nesupratau, kur jums truksta tikslumo - ivardijamos mokslininku pavardes, metai, apibudinama tiriamuju imtis ir charakteristikos). Tai, kokia prasme savo teiginyje panaudojote "more likely", leidzia man manyti, jog jus nelabai suprantate anglu kalba. As perziurejau visa teksta - sis issireiskimas daugiausia buvo naudojamas hipotezeje (pvz., hipoteze: "vaikai, kurie mato daugiau smurto per masines komunikacijos priemones yra linke buti agresyvesni ("are more likely to be aggressive") realiame gyvenime".) Toliau si fraze pakartojama, patvirtinant gautus rezultatus, t.y. pasitvirtinus hipotezei. Kas jums nepatinka - hipoteze ar kad ji pasitvirtino?RB wrote: Kartotis tingiu, bet jei trumpai – mergina_22, perskaityk savo pateiktas citatas ir suskaičiuok, kiek ten pateikiama konkrečių duomenų, o kiek miglotų „more likely“.
As pateikiau faktus apie pagrindinius atliktus mokslinius tyrinejimus ir ju rezultatus, kurie liudija mano pozicijos naudai. Detalus tyrimu aprasymai yra pateikti minetu mokslininku disertacijose, galite tikrinti, jeigu jas gausiteRB wrote: Taip pat niekur nepaminėta, ar buvo laikomasi mokslinės tyrimų metodikos, ar patys stebėtojai žinojo, kuri grupė yra eksperimentinė, o kuri kontrolinė (t. y. ar jų išankstinis nusiteikimas negalėjo įtakoti rezultatų).
Beje, tokie klasikiniai tyrinejimai kaip A. Banduros yra labai placiai zinomi ir be ju neapsieina nei vienas socialines psichologijos vadovelis. Jeigu taip labai susidomejote siuo tyrimu, siulau paskaityti lietuviu kalba isleista A. Suslaviciaus ir G. Valicko knyga "Socialine psichologija teisesaugos darbuotojams" (Vilnius: Lietuvos teises akademija, 1999). Ten A. Banduros ir kai kuriu kitu mokslininku eksperimentai yra nagrinejami zymiai detaliau ir jus turetumete rasti atsakymus i bent jau dali savo issikeltu klausimu.Be to, izuliai kibti, teigiant, kad "nebuvo pamineta tyrimu metodika", yra gana bjauru. Kai pateikete statistika apie nusikalstamumo lygi skirtingose salyse, ten irgi nebuvo parasyta, kokiu budu surinkti duomenys. Kas zino, gal juos surinko kokie roziniai juru arkliukai. Kol neirodysite priesingai, netikesiu ju tikrumu
Kitaip sakant - nenueikime iki absurdo...Mano komentaras buvo pateiktas jau po to, cituojant jūsų pasisakymą ir jį komentuojant. Greičiausiai jūs jo apskritai nematėte. Bet tai nesvarbu, esmines mintis aš čia jau pakartojau.mergina_22 wrote:Jusu komentaras, kuriame atskleidete retorikos gabumus, buvo parasytas pries man pateikiant faktinius duomenis, kuriu vos ne verkdamas prasete. Tikrai tenka konstatuoti, kad retorika vs. faktai tikrai liudija jusu komentaro nukeliavima "k chiortovoj materi".
OK. O dabar, prašau, savo pateikiamose citatose pirštuku parodykite tuos „konkrečius“ duomenis.mergina_22 wrote: Paskaiciau. Visur pateikiami konkretus duomenys.
Kaip jau sakiau „more likely to be aggresive“ nėra konkretūs duomenys. Mane domintų pvz., tokie duomenys, kaip kad kiek procentų padaugėjo agresyvaus elgesio atvejų eksperimentinėje grupėje, lyginant su kontroline (kaip jau sakiau, tokius duomenis radau paminėtus tik vienoje citatoje.)
Galbut sukonkretinti ir reiketu, taciau tai reikia padaryti bendru sutarimu, o ne pagal mano ar jusu nuomone. Diskusijoje dalyvauja ir kiti zmones. Bent jau as nebuciau linkusi isskirti filmu, kuriu pagrindas yra smurtas, is smurtiniu zaidimu, smurtiniu animaciniu filmu ir smurtiniu laidu tarpo. Visi jie duoda analogiska efekta. Kaip galejote isitikinti pagal mano pateiktu tyrimu rezultatus, tas efektas varijuoja: pvz., animaciniai filmai maziau skatina realias smurto apraiskas uz meninius filmus. Taciau nemanau, kad diskusijos susiaurinimas iki kino filmu yra labai tikslingas.Shaolin Mantis wrote: Siūlau sukonkretinti kai kuriuos aptariamų dalykų punktus.
Ar kalbame apie veiksmo žanro kino filmus, ar apie kino filmuose rodomą bet kokią prievartą ar apskritai apie prievartos demonstravimą per TV? Nuolat operuojate terminu "smurtiniai filmai", bet iki šiol nesuprantu ką juo vadinate, jei galite - apibrėžkite.
Tai nekalba niekieno pozicijos naudai. Kadangi smurto priezastys yra kompleksines, mes negalime ismatuoti kiekvieno faktoriaus itakos. Nereikia cia nei filmu - jus niekada nerastumete duomenu, kokia procentine dali nusikaltimu lemia auklejimas, smurtas seimoje, narkotiku vartojimas ir t.t. Taciau tyrimu rezultatai parodo, ar apskritai ka nors is siu minetu dalyku galima laikyti smurto/agresijos faktoriumi. Kaip jau minejau, atlikti tyrimai irodo smurtiniu filmu ziurejimo ir realios agresijos apraisku rysi.Shaolin Mantis wrote: Tačiau šiuo atveju negalime matyti kitų faktorių įtakos. Nors vien pats faktas - kad egzistuoja kiti faktoriai ir kad būtent jie nulemia galutinius rezultatus - kalba mano pozicijos naudai.
Perziurejau teksta. Na, pateikiama atliktu moksliniu tyrinejimu kritika, kuri nesiremia jokiais faktais. Stai kad ir mano issirinktas teiginys apie tai, kad gauti rezultatai yra nereiksmingi, o tie, kurie reiksmingi, yra nepakankamai patikimi, nepilni ir t.t. Bet nematau jokiu faktu, kurie irodytu toki drasu pareiskima. Maza to, toks kritikas turetu imti atskira moksline studija, o ne visus kada nors kieno nors atliktus tyrimus, ir ja detaliai isanalizuoti, nurodydamas trukumus metodologijoje, tiriamuju imtyje ir t.t. Arba pats buti atlikes tyrima, kuris paneigtu analogiska hipoteze.Shaolin Mantis wrote: Labai rekomenduoju pasiskaityti šį gan skeptišką ir nekvailą tekstą:
Nedidelę šio teksto dalį leisiu sau pacituoti:
I’ve read every single study now and spent most of this year re-reading and catching up on the field. I would not call the research evidence a ‘wealth’ at all. There are very many non-significant findings. Those that are significant seem unreliable, inconsistent and often flatly contradict other studies.
Na va, o sakote, kad konkreciu duomenu nera. Be to, neignoruokite mano pasiulymo paskaityti socialines psichologijos knyga, kuria nurodziau ankstesniame post'e - ten detaliu yra kur kas daugiau. Kol neperskaitet - nera ko skustis.RB wrote: Mane domintų pvz., tokie duomenys, kaip kad kiek procentų padaugėjo agresyvaus elgesio atvejų eksperimentinėje grupėje, lyginant su kontroline (kaip jau sakiau, tokius duomenis radau paminėtus tik vienoje citatoje.)
P.S. Po mano pateiktu faktiniu duomenu neradau nei vieno jusu post'o (iki to, i kuri atsakiau). Ne, cia rimtai - as is jusu nesitycioju. Perziurejau dar karta - 2 Ateono, 2 Liucipher ir 1 Shaolin Mantis post'as. Mistika kazkokia.
P.P.S. Stai jums tie procentai. dabar gerai?
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm
Albert Bandura is most famous for the Bobo doll experiment. Albert Bandura believed that aggression must explain three aspects: First, how aggressive patterns of behavior are developed; second, what provokes people to behave aggressively, and third, what determines whether they are going to continue to resort to an aggressive behavior pattern on future occasions (Evans, 1989: p.22). In this experiment, he had children witness a model aggressively attacking a plastic clown called the Bobo doll. There children would watch a video where a model would aggressively hit a doll and " ‘...the model pummels it on the head with a mallet, hurls it down, sits on it and punches it on the nose repeatedly, kick it across the room, flings it in the air, and bombards it with balls...’(Bandura, 1973: p.72). After the video, the children were placed in a room with attractive toys, but they could not touch them. The process of retention had occurred. Therefore, the children became angry and frustrated. Then the children were led to another room where there were identical toys used in the Bobo video. The motivation phase was in occurrence. Bandura and many other researchers founded that 88% of the children imitated the aggressive behavior. Eight months later, 40% of the same children reproduce the violent behavior observed in the Bobo doll experiment http://www.mhcollegeco/socscienc/comm/bandur-s.mhtml
Tą ir rašiau – panašu, kad forumas buvo nulūžęs, vėliau atstatytas iš archyvinės duombazės, ir kažkoks post'ų skaičius negrįžtamai dingo.mergina_22 wrote:P.S. Po mano pateiktu faktiniu duomenu neradau nei vieno jusu post'o (iki to, i kuri atsakiau). Ne, cia rimtai - as is jusu nesitycioju. Perziurejau dar karta - 2 Ateono, 2 Liucipher ir 1 Shaolin Mantis post'as. Mistika kazkokia.
Vakare panagrinėsiu ir pakomentuosiui.mergina_22 wrote:P.P.S. Stai jums tie procentai. dabar gerai?